[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 109 (Wednesday, July 20, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4722-S4727]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. LEVIN (for himself and Mr. Begich):
S. 1390. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to
simplify, modernize, and improve public notice of and access to tax
lien information by providing for a national, Internet accessible,
filing system for Federal tax
[[Page S4723]]
liens, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, as Congress continues to debate ways to
reduce our national deficit, some Members of Congress are taking the
time to reflect on the state of the Federal tax system and consider how
we can simplify it and make it more efficient and fair. Today, as part
of that effort, I along with my colleague Senator Begich are
introducing legislation aimed at simplifying and modernizing the
existing system for filing Federal tax liens, a key tool used by the
Treasury to collect unpaid taxes. The bill has been endorsed by
Citizens for Tax Justice, Tax Justice Network, Public Citizen, US
Public Interest Research Group, and the FACT Coalition, an organization
of public interest and business groups concerned with tax fairness.
It has been 45 years since Congress has made any significant changes
to the laws regulating how the Internal Revenue Service, IRS, files
Federal tax liens. Right now, outdated laws are forcing the IRS to
waste taxpayer dollars on an old-fashioned, inefficient, and burdensome
paper-based filing system spread out over 4,000 locations that should
be replaced by a modernized electronic filing system capable of
operating at a fraction of the cost. It is time to bring the Federal
tax lien system into the 21st century. The Tax Lien Simplification Act,
which we are introducing today, will simplify the process of recording
tax liens at an estimated ten-year cost savings of $150 million, while
at the same time improving taxpayer service by making it easier to
verify lien information and speed up the release of liens after taxes
are paid.
Tax liens are a principal way to collect payment from persons who are
delinquent in paying their taxes. By law, Federal tax liens arise
automatically ten days after a taxpayer's failure to pay an assessed
tax. The lien automatically attaches to the taxpayer's real and
personal property and remains in effect until the tax is paid. However,
the tax lien is not effective against other creditors owed money by the
same taxpayer, until a notice of the Federal tax lien is publicly
recorded. Generally, between competing creditors, the first to file
notice has priority, so the filing of tax lien notices is very
important to the Government and to the taxpaying public if taxes are to
be collected from persons owing taxes.
Current law requires the IRS to file public notices of Federal tax
liens on paper in State, county, or city recording offices around the
country, to ensure other creditors receive notice of the government's
claim. There are currently more than 4,100 of these recording offices,
many of which have developed specific rules regulating how such liens
must be formatted and filed in their jurisdictions. This patchwork
system developed more by default than by plan, as different offices
developed procedures for filing a variety of legal documents affecting
title to real and personal property.
In 1966, to help the IRS comply with a proliferating set of filing
rules for Federal tax liens, Congress passed the Tax Lien Act to
standardize certain practices. This act provided, for example, that
liens against real estate had to be filed where the property was
located, and required each State to designate a single place to file
Federal tax liens applicable to personal property. Most States
subsequently adopted a version of the Uniform Tax Lien Filing Act,
enabling the IRS to file a notice of tax lien in each locality where
the taxpayer's real estate is located, and a single notice where the
taxpayer resides to reach any personal property. For corporations,
States typically require the IRS to file a notice to attach real estate
in each locality where the real estate is located, and a separate
notice, usually at the State level, to attach other types of property.
There are often additional rules for trusts and partnerships. The end
result of the law was to reduce some but not all of the multiple sets
of rules regulating the filing of Federal tax liens.
The bottom line today is that, in most cases, tax liens have to be
physically filed in one of over 4,000 recording offices. In most cases,
that filing is accomplished by mail, using paper documents. Some
jurisdictions also allow electronic filings, but those jurisdictions
are few and far between. The same is true if a lien has to be
corrected, or a related certificate of discharge, subordination, or
nonattachment needs to be filed, or when a tax liability has been
resolved and the IRS wants to release a lien. Each action usually
requires a paper filing in one or more recording offices and requires
the additional involvement of third parties. If a paper filing is lost
or misplaced, the IRS often has to send an employee in person to deal
with the problem, adding travel costs to other administrative expenses.
The paper filing system imposes similar burdens on other persons
dealing with the tax lien system. Any person who is the subject of a
tax lien, for example, or who is a creditor trying to locate a tax
lien, is required to make a physical trip to one or more recording
offices, which may not even be in the same State as the taxpayer, to
search the documents, see if a lien has been filed, and verify or
examine the information. Currently, there is no single database of tax
liens that can be accessed by any taxpayer that is the subject of a
federal tax lien, by any creditor, or by any member of the public. Not
even IRS personnel have access to such a tax lien database. It does not
exist.
The result is an inefficient, costly, and burdensome paper filing
system that can and should be completely revamped. Businesses across
the country learned long ago that electronic filing systems outperform
paper; they save personnel costs, material costs, time, and
aggravation. Government agencies have learned the same thing as they
have moved to electronic databases and recordkeeping, including systems
made available to the public on the Internet. Among the many examples
of government-sponsored, Internet-based systems currently in operation
are the contractor registry operated by the General Services
Administration to allow persons to register to bid on federal
contracts, the license registry operated by the Federal Communications
Commission to allow the public to search radio licenses, and the
registry operated by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to allow the
public to search currently registered patents and trademarks. Each of
these systems has saved taxpayer money, while improving service to the
public.
Just as government agencies gave up the horse and buggy for the
automobile, it is time for the IRS to move from a decentralized, paper-
based tax lien filing system to an electronic national tax lien
registry. But the IRS' hands are tied, until Congress changes the laws
holding back modernization of the federal tax lien filing system.
The bill we are introducing today would make the changes necessary to
enable the IRS to take immediate steps to simplify and modernize the
federal tax lien filing system. The operative provisions would require
the establishment of a national registry for the filing of tax lien
notices as an electronic database that is Internet accessible and
searchable by the public at no cost. It would mandate the use of this
system in place of the existing system of paper filings. It would
establish the priority of federal tax liens according to the date and
time that the relevant notice was filed in the national registry, in
the same way that priorities are currently established from the date
and time of a paper filing. The bill would also shorten the time
allowed to release a tax lien, after the related tax liability has been
resolved, from 30 days to 20 days.
To establish this new electronic filing system, the bill would give
the Treasury Secretary express authority to issue regulations or other
guidance governing the establishment and maintenance of the registry.
Among other obligations, Treasury would be required to ensure that the
registry was secure and prevent data tampering. Treasury would also be
required to work with industry and other potential users of the
registry to develop accurate search criteria to identify persons who
are the subject of a tax lien. In addition, prior to the implementation
of the national registry, the Treasury Secretary would be required to
review the information currently included in public tax lien filings to
determine whether any of that information should be excluded from
disclosure on the Internet. For example, the Treasury Secretary would
end disclosure of social security numbers that are currently included
in some tax lien filings.
[[Page S4724]]
While such identifying information could continue to be included in a
tax lien filing to ensure that the filing is directed toward the
correct person, the registry could be constructed to prevent such
information from being disclosed publicly and instead provide such
information only upon request from appropriate persons involved in the
enforcement of the tax lien or collection of the tax debt. By requiring
this information review prior to implementing the national tax lien
registry, the bill would provide greater privacy protections for
taxpayer information than occurs in current tax lien filings.
To ensure a successful transition to the new system, the bill would
require the Treasury Secretary to establish one or more pilot projects
to be carried out within 2 years of enactment of the bill, and require
a successful nationwide test of the tax lien registry before it can be
made operational. The bill would also allow the IRS to continue to use
the existing paper-based tax lien filing system, in parallel with the
new system, for an appropriate period to ensure a smooth transition.
Moving to an electronic tax lien filing system using an Internet-
based national registry of tax liens, would accomplish at least three
objectives. It would save taxpayer dollars, streamline the process for
filing, correcting, and releasing tax liens, and improve taxpayer and
public access to tax lien information.
The IRS estimates that moving from a paper-based tax lien system to
an Internet-based, Federal tax lien registry would save about $150
million over 10 years. These savings would come from the elimination of
State filing fees, paper and mailing costs, IRS administrative and
travel costs related to paper filing problems, and the cost of lost
taxes whenever the IRS makes an error or a tax lien filing is misplaced
or delayed. Filing fees, for example, vary widely from State to State,
but typically cost at least $10 per filing, and in some States cost as
much as $150. If a taxpayer has real estate in multiple jurisdictions,
those costs multiply. A Federal tax lien system would standardize costs
for all taxpayers, and require only one filing across all
jurisdictions.
In addition, right now, an IRS service center is currently charged
with filing tax liens nationwide and complying with the myriad filing
rules in effect in the 4,100 recording offices across the country.
Eliminating the paper filing system would free virtually that entire
service center for other taxpayer services and enforcement work.
Electronic filing would not only save money, it would improve
taxpayer service. Taxpayers who are the subject of a tax lien filing,
for example, would benefit from an electronic registry in several ways.
First, taxpayers would be able to review their liens as soon as they
are filed online, without having to make a physical trip to one or more
recording offices. Second, taxpayers would have an easy way to look up
their liens on multiple occasions, identify problems, and correct any
errors. A single tax lien registry would be particularly useful for
taxpayers who move during the ten years that a tax lien can be in
effect and have to look up liens in jurisdictions where they no longer
live.
Third, once the underlying tax liability is resolved, the IRS would
be required to release the tax lien in 20 days, instead of the 30 days
allowed under current law. The longer 30-day period is necessitated by
the current complexities associated with filing a paper lien in one or
more offices across the country, requiring the action of multiple
parties in different jurisdictions. These complexities would be
eliminated by the establishment of an electronic registry. The registry
would also enable taxpayers, after they pay their taxes, to make sure
their liens have been lifted.
Creditors who need to research Federal tax liens would also benefit
from a single electronic registry. Lenders, security holders and
others, for example, would be able to use a simplified search process
that could take place online and would not require procedures that,
ultimately, require physical trips to multiple locations. A single tax
lien registry would make it easier to locate tax liens for persons who
have moved from the jurisdictions where the liens were first filed.
Simplifying the search process would also provide greater certainty
that all tax liens were found. The ability to research Federal tax
liens remotely and instantaneously should be of particular benefit to
larger lenders and to creditors of taxpayers with assets in more than
one county or State.
Tax liens are not a topic that normally excites the public's
interest. But sound tax administration requires attention to efficient,
effective and low-cost filing systems. Saving taxpayer dollars is more
important than ever as Congress looks for ways to tackle the deficit.
Federal law is currently impeding development of a more efficient,
cost effective tax lien filing system. Amending the law as indicated in
the Tax Lien Simplification Act to streamline the tax lien filing
system, moving it from a paper-based to an electronic-based system,
would not only advance the more efficient, effective tax system we all
want, it would also save taxpayer money. At the same time, it would
make the system work better for individual taxpayers by reducing the
possibility for mistakes and speeding up the release of liens for
taxpayers who have paid. Modernizing our tax lien filing system makes
sense in every way. I urge our colleagues to join us in enacting this
bill into law this year.
______
By Ms. COLLINS (for herself, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Alexander, Ms.
Landrieu, Mr. Toomey, and Mr. Pryor):
S. 1392. A bill to provide additional time for the Administrator of
the Environmental Protection Agency to issue achievable standards for
industrial, commercial, and institutional boilers, process heaters, and
incinerators, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Environment
and Public Works.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the EPA
Regulatory Relief Act of 2011. I am pleased to be joined in this effort
by my colleagues Senators Wyden, Alexander, Landrieu, Pryor, and
Toomey. Our legislation is straight forward: it would allow the EPA the
time it needs, by its own estimate, to adequately consider and propose
a reasonable, workable rule that affects boilers.
Our bill includes four key provisions. First, it provides the EPA
with the 15 months it requested to properly analyze the best methods
for implementing the application of the Clean Air Act to certain
boilers. Second, it will give businesses adequate time to comply with
any requirements the EPA adopts by extending the compliance deadline
from 3 years to 5 years. Third, our bill will direct the EPA, when
developing the new rules, to ensure that renewable and carbon-neutral
materials remain classified as fuel and not solid waste. Fourth, our
legislation will help ensure that the rules are achievable by real-
world standards consistent with the President's directive to improve
Federal regulations.
At a time when manufacturers are struggling to retain jobs, it is
essential that this rule not jeopardize thousands of jobs in
manufacturing, particularly in the forest products industry, by
imposing billions of dollars of new costs. Our legislation provides
common sense solutions to the challenges the EPA is facing in
attempting to draft and implement these complicated rules, which if
written without proper data, analysis, and consideration, would cost
the industry billions of dollars and potentially thousands of jobs.
To be sure, the EPA performs some vital functions in helping to
ensure that the air we breathe is clean and the water we drink is safe.
We need, however, to make sure that as the EPA issues new regulations,
it does not create so many roadblocks to economic growth that it
discourages private investment, which is the key to maintaining and
creating jobs.
The EPA's proposed ``boiler MACT'' rules, which would affect tens of
thousands of boilers, have been an issue of great concern to many of my
constituents in Maine. The forest products industry, in particular, is
the economic backbone of many rural areas in our country, including in
Maine. Mill managers and workers in Maine have expressed their concern
to me about the impact of imposing excessively costly regulations on
their mills at this time of economic hardship.
Since these rules were first proposed in April 2010, I have been very
troubled that the cost of implementation would
[[Page S4725]]
be far greater than EPA originally estimated. According to industry
estimates, this rule could cost Maine businesses alone hundreds of
millions of dollars and put many jobs at risk, when less expensive
approaches could be used to address emissions from boilers. This is
simply unacceptable in this economic climate.
Furthermore, these rules might force some of our mills in Maine to
stop using biomass, a source of renewable energy, and instead dump the
biomass in landfills and switch to fossil fuels. This makes no sense.
As the President has stated, biomass is an important renewable energy
source that our nation should promote in working to reduce our
dependence on foreign oil. Converting to fossil fuels alone would also
cost mills hundreds of millions of dollars.
My colleagues and I have been concerned about this issue since the
EPA proposed these new boiler MACT rules in April 2010. Last year, 40
of my Senate colleagues, including 17 Democrats, wrote to the EPA
expressing our deep concern that the boiler MACT regulations would
impose onerous burdens on U.S. manufacturers. We asked the EPA to set
emissions standards based on what real-world, best-performing units
actually can achieve. This letter reflected the widespread bipartisan
concern about the proposed boiler MACT rules.
It is important to remember that, under The Clean Air Act, a Maximum
Achievability Control Technology rule, or ``MACT'' rule, is designed to
reduce emissions to an achievable degree while also considering the
economic impact on businesses. The MACT rule must also set its standard
according to the best performing practices existing facilities.
However, in the case of the boiler MACT rule, the EPA cherry-picked
data without considering the real world operating practices of the
facilities that will be affected by this rule.
In March 2011, I also asked Administrator Jackson at a hearing to
explain why the EPA is not considering alternative standards for
emissions since the MACT limits may be far more stringent than
necessary to protect public health. Additionally, I have pressed
officials at the Office of Management and Budget, such as Administrator
of the Office of Regulatory Affairs, Cass Sunstein, about the very
negative impacts EPA's Boiler MACT rules would have on the forest
products industry.
In 2010, the EPA did request more time from the court to analyze and
prepare the boiler MACT rules after it received thousands of comments
that raised technical and cost concerns the agency had not originally
considered. In response, the EPA appealed for an additional 15 months
to implement the rule, noting that the public interest would be best
served if it could obtain additional input from the public on these
complex rules. Unfortunately, this plea was rejected by the D.C.
District Court, and the agency was forced to re-propose the rule in a
mere 30 days.
The stakes are too high for the EPA to be forced to rush a complex,
multi-step process that could cost thousands of American jobs. Our bill
will provide a balance that will help the EPA protect the environment
and public health while ensuring that businesses in Maine and
throughout the country are not faced with needlessly onerous burdens.
The EPA has claimed that the cost of the final rule has been lowered
by 50 percent since the proposed rule last year; however, this is
little comfort to manufacturers because the initial rule, according to
industry estimates, was approximately $4 billion in capital costs to
the forest industry and over $14 billion for all industrial sectors
nationwide. The industry experts that I've talked with are very
concerned that the standards are being set so high that they are going
to have to make a massive new investment at a time when they can least
afford it.
The EPA is making progress in reducing the costs and coming up with a
more practical approach to the boiler MACT rules, and I believe we can
achieve the health benefits that we desire without putting thousands of
people out of work. This bill will help ensure that result.
I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle to ensure that the EPA has sufficient time to propose a well
thought-out rule that minimizes the negative effect on the economy,
while helping to protect public health and the environment.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
July 20, 2011.
Hon. Susan Collins,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Ron Wyden,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senators: We are writing to express our united and
strong support for legislation you are introducing today and
for H.R. 2250, the ``EPA Regulatory Relief Act of 2011,''
bipartisan legislation to address the serious concerns that
remain with EPA's Boiler MACT rules. As they exist today, the
final Boiler MACT rules will have serious economic impacts on
a vast array of facilities across the industrial, commercial
and institutional sectors. These rules place at risk tens of
thousands of high-paying manufacturing jobs that our nation
cannot afford to lose.
As finalized, the Boiler MACT rules are unaffordable, just
as the proposed rules were. The rules are not achievable for
real-world boilers across the range of fuels and operating
conditions. EPA also has created a presumption that materials
commonly used as fuels are wastes subject to the extremely
costly and stigmatizing incinerator standards. This would not
only impose billions of dollars in unreasonable costs, but it
also would cause millions of tons of valuable materials to be
diverted to landfills and replaced with fossil fuel--a bad
result for the environment.
As EPA has acknowledged, the rules were finalized with
serious flaws because EPA was forced to meet a strict court-
ordered deadline. The final Boiler MACT rule alone would cost
over $14 billion in capital for the manufacturing sector,
plus billions more in annual operating costs. Complying with
the incinerator standards could cost several billion dollars
more in capital.
Legislation is needed to resolve serious uncertainties and
vulnerabilities, including to: ensure the rules are stayed
for an adequate and certain period, as EPA's current
administrative stay is being challenged in court; allow EPA
adequate time to re-propose the rules and get them right,
including time for stakeholders to conduct more emissions
testing and to avoid mistakes that occur when rulemakings of
this scope and importance are rushed and become vulnerable to
legal challenge; provide direction and support for EPA to use
the discretion it already has under the Clean Air Act and
Executive Order 13563 to add flexibility and make the rules
achievable; clarify that using non-hazardous materials as
fuels does not result in boilers being treated as
incinerators; and give facilities more time to comply with
the complex and capital-intensive requirements of the
rules.
If enacted, the ``EPA Regulatory Relief Act'' will provide
the much-needed certainty and time for EPA to get the rules
right and for businesses that will be investing billions of
dollars to rationally plan for the capital expenses. This
legislation will preserve jobs and the competitiveness of the
U.S. manufacturing sector while protecting the environment.
Thank you for your leadership on this issue of great
importance to our industries and our workers.
Sincerely,
American Forest & Paper Association, American Chemistry
Council, American Home Furnishings Alliance, American
Petroleum Institute, American Wood Council, Association
of American Railroads, Biomass Power Association, Brick
Industry Association, Business Roundtable, Cement Kiln
Recycling Coalition, Composite Panel Association,
Construction Materials Recycling Association, Corn
Refiners Association, and Council of Industrial Boiler
Owners.
Hardwood Plywood and Veneer Association, International
Falls Chamber of Commerce (MN), National Association of
Manufacturers, National Federation of Independent
Business, National Oilseed Processors Association,
National Solid Wastes Management Association, NORA, An
Association of Responsible Recyclers (formerly the
National Oil Recyclers Association), Rubber
Manufactures Association, Society of Chemical
Manufacturers and Affiliates, The International
Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, The
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America, Treated Wood Council, U.S. Chamber of
Commerce, and Virginia Forestry Association.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, biomass energy development is not only a
great economic opportunity for Oregon, it is an essential piece of the
forest health puzzle. Biomass energy helps create a market and a way to
pay for forest thinning and hazardous fuels programs. It is also a way
for keeping local timber and wood products mills in business at a time
when the industry, like many
[[Page S4726]]
in the U.S. is going through hard times. Biomass also provides an
important renewable energy option for the Nation as a substitute for
coal and other fossil fuels. Every region of the country has biomass
energy opportunities even if the exact nature of the biomass that would
be used varies from region to region. Today, I am joining my colleague
from Maine, Senator Collins, and a bipartisan group of Senators, in
introducing legislation to make sure that the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency can, and will, issue regulations under the Clean Air
Act and the Solid Waste Disposal Act that ensure that the owners of
these mills and biomass energy plants can continue to invest in them
and maintain and create the jobs that are so badly needed.
Pending Environmental Protection Agency regulations governing boilers
and incinerators will make it very difficult for biomass energy to be
used in the U.S. To its credit, EPA recognizes this fact and has
repeatedly proposed to rewrite those regulations to address the
concerns of biomass energy users, the forest products industry, and
other industries. The legislation being introduced today is aimed at
making sure that EPA can collect the necessary data and reissue its
regulations in an orderly process that preserves biomass energy as a
national energy option and allows economically hard pressed timber and
forest products mills to remain in operation.
On December 7, 2010, EPA, which was under court order to issue new
Clean Air Act regulations for boilers and incinerators, filed a request
with the Federal Court overseeing the boiler emissions rules asking for
a delay in the court-ordered deadline for issuing the rules by 15
months so that EPA could reevaluate its own proposed rules and address
the problems raised by the forest products industry and others.
However, the Federal judge hearing the case rejected EPA's request and
gave EPA just a month to fix the rule. In February 2011, EPA met that
deadline, but continuing to recognize the flaws in its regulations, it
immediately triggered an administrative process known as
reconsideration to allow affected industries to provide more
information and for the agency to revise its regulations. In May, EPA
agreed with industry comments that the rule needed to be reviewed and
it agreed to stay, or delay, the implementation of the existing Clean
Air Act rules for boilers and incinerators. Unfortunately, EPA did not
issue a stay of a related rule which defines which materials can be
burned in those boilers and which need to be burned in incinerators.
EPA has now proposed a schedule, which it confirmed in letters to me
and several other Senators, to consider additional comments by industry
and others and develop new Clean Air Act rules.
Unfortunately, this is not the end of the story. Stays can be lifted
by the courts. This legislation would statutorily affirm the EPA's stay
of the Clean Air Act rules. And it would affirm EPA's proposal to issue
new regulations by a date certain. That date would be 15 months from
the date of enactment, the same period of time EPA claimed was
necessary to draft a new rule. The goal here, which I believe EPA
shares, is to issue Clean Air Act regulations that make sense, not to
do away with Clean Air Act regulations for boilers and incinerators.
On the other hand, by not agreeing to make changes to the ``what's a
fuel and what's not'' rule, EPA has made it very likely that many
widely used boiler fuels can no longer be used, like wood scrap from
door and window mills. And some results of the rule make little
practical sense. For example, scrap tires that are picked up at a tire
shop can continue to be burned as a fuel. Scrap tires that are picked
up at a landfill cannot. EPA has indicated that it will try to develop
regulatory guidance to help industry navigate the regulatory confusion
it has created.
I appreciate the fact that EPA recognizes that there is a problem
with the fuel-or-waste rule and that they are offering to try to fix it
by issuing regulatory guidance. However, I am not convinced that EPA
can fix the problems with the rule by just by issuing guidance. This
legislation will direct EPA to establish new rules on what materials
can be burned as boiler fuel, and which cannot, and give EPA clear
statutory direction on what can be included. This direction limits
allowable fuels to a specific list so that there are no surprises or
backdoor exceptions. EPA can add to the list only after notice and
comment so the public knows what, if any, additions are being made.
This process for defining which fuels can be burned in a boiler and
which cannot is very important to me. While it makes sense to continue
to allow many materials that the wood products industry and others have
used as boiler fuels for generations, I do not think that it's
appropriate to simply decide that any fuel that was used in a boiler in
the past should be grandfathered in. The provisions in this bill
defining what materials can be burned in a boiler ensure that will not
be the case. This was a major issue in litigation surrounding earlier
versions of these rules and I do not think it is wise to ignore this
fact. Congress has the opportunity to try to address the legitimate
concerns about what is being burned in these boilers and it should.
Finally, the bill would extend the normal 3 year period for boilers
to come into compliance to 5 years. It is my hope that once there a
final regulations and industry knows what it has to do that it will not
take that long. However, there some 2000 boilers in the U.S. that would
all have to upgrade or replace their units all at the same time and
coincident with similar rules going into effect for electric utility
company boilers. This extra time will mean that there will be no excuse
for not meeting the final standards.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters of support be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency,
Washington, DC, June 27, 2011.
Hon. Ron Wyden,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Wyden: I appreciate the opportunity to meet
with you on June 16, 2011, regarding the Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA) Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials
(NHSM) rule, the Boiler Maximum Achievable Control Technology
(MACT) rule, and the Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste
Incinerators (CISWI) rule. Thank you for your constructive
engagement on these priority issues. We are currently
exploring various pathways under existing authority to
address your concerns.
As you know, the Boiler MACT and CISWI standards are
currently subject to an administrative stay. Today, as part
of a filing with the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit, the EPA announced the intended
schedule for reconsideration of the boilers and CISWI rules.
To ensure that the agency's standards are based on the best
available data and that the public is given ample opportunity
to provide additional input and information, the agency
intends to propose the reconsideration rule by the end of
October 2011 and issue a final rule by the end of April 2012.
This is the best approach to establish technically and
legally sound standards that will bring significant health
benefits to the American public.
We believe that this stay and the reconsideration period
will provide ample time to administratively address the
issues raised by various stakeholders on these corresponding
rules.
The NHSM rule, which we discussed in our meeting, aims to
ensure that the burning of solid waste is subject to
appropriate emission controls required under the Clean Air
Act and that exposure to harmful pollutants is minimized. We
understand that biomass derivatives have long been used for
energy purposes in the wood products industry and we believe
our rule allows such use to continue without being subject to
the CISWI standards, provided that criteria, referred to as
``legitimacy'' criteria, are met.
Since promulgation of our rule, questions have arisen about
how these criteria will be applied and our goal has been to
ensure that the flexibility provided by the rule is in fact
realized. To that end, we have held several meetings with
industry representatives to discuss and understand their
concerns and to review newly available data. In addition, on
June 21, 2011, my Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and
Emergency Response, Mathy Stanislaus, met with
representatives of several industries that use biomass
derivatives and other non-hazardous secondary materials as
fuel to ensure that they understand the significant
flexibility already afforded by the rule, and to discuss the
EPA's concepts for further clarifying that flexibility.
As part of that discussion, Mr. Stanislaus explained that
one of the options that EPA is considering is issuing
clarifying guidance regarding the Agency's legitimacy
criteria. Such guidance is a useful tool that is often used
under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) to
address these types of issues. The guidance could provide a
clear guidepost for comparing traditional fuels with
secondary materials. It potentially could clarify that
certain nonhazardous secondary materials would not be
considered
[[Page S4727]]
solid waste when combusted and that the units combusting
those materials can continue to be used as fuels without
having to meet the CISWI standards. Mr. Stanislaus requested
that the industry representatives provide the Agency with
supporting data on traditional fuels that could further
inform the development of such guidance, and asked for
feedback on the approach he outlined. In addition to this
approach, the Agency is also exploring other options.
We recognize that stakeholders have also raised other
issues with the NHSM rule. We are continuing to evaluate
those issues expeditiously.
I believe we have made significant progress in addressing
the concerns raised by the industry. I will continue to watch
the issue closely and keep you informed. My goal is to bring
these issues to closure as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.
____
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response,
Washington, DC, July 11, 2011.
Hon. Ron Wyden,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Wyden: Thank you again for the constructive
dialogue regarding issues relating to EPA's Non-Hazardous
Secondary Materials (NHSM) rule, the Boiler Maximum
Achievable Control Technology (MACT) rule and the Commercial
and Industrial Solid Waste Incinerator (CISWI) rule. In the
Administrator's letter of June 27, 2011 she indicated that
the agency is exploring various pathways to address your
specific concerns regarding implementation of the NHSM rule.
EPA is committed to issuing guidance to assist industry in
applying the legitimacy criteria, and had requested that
industry representatives provide the agency with supporting
data to further inform the development of such guidance.
We received additional information from industry and based
on this information and further discussions, we have
developed the enclosed concept paper for the development of
guidance. The paper identifies approaches to the guidance
that EPA continues to evaluate for determining whether
concentrations of contaminants in the NHSM are ``comparable''
to concentrations of those same contaminants in traditional
fuels. These comparisons are important in ensuring that NHSM
are being legitimately recycled and are not solid wastes, as
well as recognizing the varied uses of such secondary
materials as product fuels.
We are optimistic about our ability to develop guidance
that meaningfully addresses the industry concerns and we are
giving it the highest priority within the agency. We intend
to complete internal development of draft guidance based on
the concept paper by August 31, 2011. In addition, we
continue to evaluate all available options available to
address the issues raised.
Please be assured that EPA will continue to keep you
informed of our progress in addressing the issues involved
with the NHSM rule, as well as the related Clean Air Act
rulemakings. If you or your staff have any questions
regarding the enclosed concept paper, please contact me or
your staff may call Carolyn Levine in EPA's Office of
Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations at (202) 564-
1859.
Sincerely,
Mathy Stanislaus,
Assistant Administrator.
____________________